That "behavior" was frowned upon in the past because people used to be even more pig-headed and blinded by their fucking sky-fairy stories than they are today. There is absolutely no reason that being openly gay ought to come with any cost. Being the ones who assess that cost (the bigots) against gays and lesbians needs to become very costly. I'm not going to say that homophobia ought to be criminally prosecutable, but it ought to be considered totally unacceptable on the social level. Make anti-gay slurs at school? You get suspended for a week. Do it at work? You get fired. We really need to stop the bullshit now.
No. You are absolutely, 100% wrong. Words do hurt. Maybe this is what your grandpa was taught in school, but it is simply not the case anymore. We are social creatures by our very nature. No matter how much we know we should not care about what others have to say about us, their words have an impact. This is particularly true of children who are beginning to develop their concept of self. While I agree that to a certain extent, people need to learn to deal with bullshit, they also need to learn that it is not an acceptable way to treat people. Bullies need to be punished, and kids need to be taught that their words really do have profound consequences.
The First Amendment only protects you from government prosecution. Getting suspended from school clearly does not count. The most helpful way to think of it is to imagine that the school is your employer. If you worked for the Federal government, you would not imagine that simply because your boss was a government employee that you had full First Amendment rights at your job and could freely tell him to fuck off, right? School is the same thing. Students can't be criminally prosecuted for anything that you or I couldn't be prosecuted for, but they can provide discipline within the confines of that system for speech that would otherwise be protected by the First Amendment.
If you don't think there are any lingering effects from smoking a joint or two on the weekend when you come to work, you've obviously been smoking the stuff.
Either that or I know how to read and care about the evidence. There have been many, many studies into this, and there is no evidence to suggest that what you say is the case. Would you be upset to find out that the guy performing surgery on you had shared a bottle of wine over dinner with his wife last Saturday? You clearly know absolutely nothing about what you are talking about, other than the lies and FUD you were told in your high school health class. It's time to grow up and think for yourself.
Yes. This. I think the most egregious example of this is the accepted procedure for termination of employment. You, the lowly piece of shit employee, are expected to give your boss 2 weeks notice (at least) before you quit a job, to avoid inconveniencing them. The boss, however, has no such obligation. Even in our society where the vast majority of workers live paycheck to paycheck, and any loss of work can be devastating, it is totally legitimate for your boss to simply tell you not to come in the next day. WTF America?
How is this a problem? An initial positive is not the final thing.
Are you serious? You honestly think that in 99.9% of cases you have have a snowball's chance in Hell of getting the job after failing a pre-employment drug screening in the US? This is a HUGE problem. I mean, even if the drug test comes back as a legit positive, what business is it of an employer if someone likes to smoke a doobie or two on the weekends? Go out every night of the week and get fucking sloshed, and your employer couldn't care less, as long as you don't actually show up to work drunk. Smoke a joint or two on the weekend? GTFO you drug abusing piece of shit!!!!! It is completely insane, and totally contrary to every bit of medical evidence we have and all of the logic and reasoning we can apply to it.
An embedded video would still be blocked, the request still goes out to youtube's server. If this were the case, then ad-blocking software/extensions would be totally useless.
That would be fine, except most people don't understand what bandwidth is or how they can avoid wasting it (Note: this is not to say that they are stupid or ignorant, they simply don't have a reason to give a shit as computers are not in their interest/skill set). For the people who wouldn't understand the sign about wasting bandwidth, trying to go to YouTube.com and seeing a blocked message would most likely make them give up and find something better to do with their time.
...the figure is more like 95% -- every Facebook user who uses their real personal data (aka, everyone that is not a pedo and/or a slashdotter) is sharing their personal data. I know this because they are putting their personal data on Facebook, which is a fscking public forum.
I'm really getting tired of everyone complaining about Facebook not respecting users' privacy -- the whole point of the platform is to make information public. I have a Facebook page. I find it to be tremendously useful to me, but I don't ever put anything on there that I do not want publicly available.
Well... if failing to follow the dietary restrictions could result in the person having a psychotic episode and become violent and dangerous, I would hope the answer would be yes...
This. Although I think that this is also something that we need to take a hard look at. In this age where the means of communication are so thoroughly controlled by monolithic corporations, is it still in our best interests to allow private entities to censor speech they do not approve of? This is simply a question, one that must be addressed very delicately, as there are huge potential problems. I don't think, for instance, that a science faculty at a private institution ought to put up with a biology teacher teaching Intelligent Design (read: Creationism) in the classroom. I also don't think that it would be in the best interest of our country if Google decided tomorrow that it wanted to block all speech that reflected negatively upon the United States government, although they would be well within their rights to do that if they chose to (note: I don't think that this is at all likely, it is a hypothetical situation). Like I said, this is a very complicated issue, and there are no simple answers. I would submit, however, that simply allowing the status quo to continue can (and probably will) come back to bite us in the ass. Just as civil rights legislation originally applied only to government, I hope that one day corporations will be held somewhat responsible for ensuring free speech rights.
They had the machine for decades, but that means they were working with a decades old system. I don't think that a hacker that only had experience working with 1960's computer tech would have much luck hacking into a modern system... and that is still human technology.
Optimus is actually a great tech, if you have Windows. It switches automatically between an integrated graphics card and a discreet nVidia card, saving battery power when you don't need the heavy duty GPU, but giving you the power when you need it.
An Optimus-equipped laptop will run Linux. I know, as I am writing this from a Dell XPS 14 running Ubuntu. You will not, unfortunately, be able to use the discreet card. The integrated card, however, works fine. It has more than enough power to run Compiz, which is all I need it for. This is a bummer, but it is not clear that this is nVidia's fault -- the Optimus tech requires that your OS be able to switch graphics drivers on the fly, and it is not clear that either the Linux kernel or X has this capability. Furthermore, it is clear that even if proper Optimus drivers can be written for Linux, it would be a huge pain in the ass to actually implement them. I am no huge fan of nVidia, but please do a little research before mucking up a perfectly good forum with your ill-informed opinions. nVidia is not hanging you out to dry here, they are a business and have made a smart decision that will benefit a lot more people than it will inconvenience.
Because there is a huge amount of evidence available to even a casual observer, and the opposition has no answer that is even remotely convincing. This is not a statement of faith, this is a statement of reason. To deny that this position is the correct one is to deny that there is any such thing as truth or reason and that we might as well give up trying.
I disagree. I can completely understand that most Christians don't follow the Bible as it is written. Doing so would be entirely impossible, as the entire thing is riddled with contradictions, not to mention the felonious nature of many of the acts required of you (read Deuteronomy 21:18-21). I can completely understand that many Christians pick and choose their morality and don't truly follow what the Bible tells them to do.
What I don't understand is that people don't get a hint from this -- it is clearly a book written by men. If the Bible were totally internally consistent, that could be an argument for divinity, but it is not. If the Bible contained information that could not have been obtained by men, it would be worth considering. It does not, however, contain any scientific information that would not have been readily available to people to whom the wheelbarrow was emergent technology.
When I point out the immorality of the Old Testament to believers, I am told that it was a different time. You know what? I agree. It certainly was a different time when the Old Testament was written. The laws in the Old Testament were, in fact, a reflection of the time in which they were written. This, to me, is another argument against the divinity of the Bible -- the fact that the God in the Bible always seems to be a direct reflection of the time in which the various myths and fables were recorded tells me that God is, in fact, a creation of man, rather than the other way around.
There is a very good reason for threatening speech to be against the law. Imagine this hypothetical situation: You are sitting around your house late at night, and your phone rings. A guy on the other end of the phone tells you that he is coming over and is going to shoot you in the dick. If you called the police, would you be satisfied with them telling you that the threat was not a crime in and of itself, and that you ought to call back after you had already been shot in the dick?
I can see no reason that the Internet needs to be treated any differently. We aren't talking about the government having full immediate access to everything that everyone posts online, we are talking about the police being able to subpoena website owners and ISPs to determine the identity of someone making a serious threat. I understand that this power is abused often, but if someone posts a bomb threat on a forum the cops damn well better be doing everything they can to identify the person responsible before anyone gets hurt. We need to put common sense controls on when the police can use this power, but taking it away completely really is just throwing the baby out with the bath water.
The New Testament never nullifies ANYTHING in the Old Testament. Believe me, I've read them both. Tip: Don't argue with an atheist about the Bible, we know more about it than you do.
He did not do that -- it was a friend of his. This means that if you say something stupid, but clearly non-threatening, on the Internet, that the FBI has a right to spy on everyone you know. That, to me, is an extremely troubling precedent to set.
Slashdot Mirror
That "behavior" was frowned upon in the past because people used to be even more pig-headed and blinded by their fucking sky-fairy stories than they are today. There is absolutely no reason that being openly gay ought to come with any cost. Being the ones who assess that cost (the bigots) against gays and lesbians needs to become very costly. I'm not going to say that homophobia ought to be criminally prosecutable, but it ought to be considered totally unacceptable on the social level. Make anti-gay slurs at school? You get suspended for a week. Do it at work? You get fired. We really need to stop the bullshit now.
No. You are absolutely, 100% wrong. Words do hurt. Maybe this is what your grandpa was taught in school, but it is simply not the case anymore. We are social creatures by our very nature. No matter how much we know we should not care about what others have to say about us, their words have an impact. This is particularly true of children who are beginning to develop their concept of self. While I agree that to a certain extent, people need to learn to deal with bullshit, they also need to learn that it is not an acceptable way to treat people. Bullies need to be punished, and kids need to be taught that their words really do have profound consequences.
The First Amendment only protects you from government prosecution. Getting suspended from school clearly does not count. The most helpful way to think of it is to imagine that the school is your employer. If you worked for the Federal government, you would not imagine that simply because your boss was a government employee that you had full First Amendment rights at your job and could freely tell him to fuck off, right? School is the same thing. Students can't be criminally prosecuted for anything that you or I couldn't be prosecuted for, but they can provide discipline within the confines of that system for speech that would otherwise be protected by the First Amendment.
If you don't think there are any lingering effects from smoking a joint or two on the weekend when you come to work, you've obviously been smoking the stuff.
Either that or I know how to read and care about the evidence. There have been many, many studies into this, and there is no evidence to suggest that what you say is the case. Would you be upset to find out that the guy performing surgery on you had shared a bottle of wine over dinner with his wife last Saturday? You clearly know absolutely nothing about what you are talking about, other than the lies and FUD you were told in your high school health class. It's time to grow up and think for yourself.
Yes. This. I think the most egregious example of this is the accepted procedure for termination of employment. You, the lowly piece of shit employee, are expected to give your boss 2 weeks notice (at least) before you quit a job, to avoid inconveniencing them. The boss, however, has no such obligation. Even in our society where the vast majority of workers live paycheck to paycheck, and any loss of work can be devastating, it is totally legitimate for your boss to simply tell you not to come in the next day. WTF America?
How is this a problem? An initial positive is not the final thing.
Are you serious? You honestly think that in 99.9% of cases you have have a snowball's chance in Hell of getting the job after failing a pre-employment drug screening in the US? This is a HUGE problem. I mean, even if the drug test comes back as a legit positive, what business is it of an employer if someone likes to smoke a doobie or two on the weekends? Go out every night of the week and get fucking sloshed, and your employer couldn't care less, as long as you don't actually show up to work drunk. Smoke a joint or two on the weekend? GTFO you drug abusing piece of shit!!!!! It is completely insane, and totally contrary to every bit of medical evidence we have and all of the logic and reasoning we can apply to it.
Yes, it's going to be very confusing when they are forced to change their name to "Mobile".
An embedded video would still be blocked, the request still goes out to youtube's server. If this were the case, then ad-blocking software/extensions would be totally useless.
That would be fine, except most people don't understand what bandwidth is or how they can avoid wasting it (Note: this is not to say that they are stupid or ignorant, they simply don't have a reason to give a shit as computers are not in their interest/skill set). For the people who wouldn't understand the sign about wasting bandwidth, trying to go to YouTube.com and seeing a blocked message would most likely make them give up and find something better to do with their time.
Holy shit you're right!!! The tubes are getting clogged!! Quick, get the dump truck!!!!!
...the figure is more like 95% -- every Facebook user who uses their real personal data (aka, everyone that is not a pedo and/or a slashdotter) is sharing their personal data. I know this because they are putting their personal data on Facebook, which is a fscking public forum.
I'm really getting tired of everyone complaining about Facebook not respecting users' privacy -- the whole point of the platform is to make information public. I have a Facebook page. I find it to be tremendously useful to me, but I don't ever put anything on there that I do not want publicly available.
I'm actually pretty sure they don't. Idiot.
Well... if failing to follow the dietary restrictions could result in the person having a psychotic episode and become violent and dangerous, I would hope the answer would be yes...
This. Although I think that this is also something that we need to take a hard look at. In this age where the means of communication are so thoroughly controlled by monolithic corporations, is it still in our best interests to allow private entities to censor speech they do not approve of? This is simply a question, one that must be addressed very delicately, as there are huge potential problems. I don't think, for instance, that a science faculty at a private institution ought to put up with a biology teacher teaching Intelligent Design (read: Creationism) in the classroom. I also don't think that it would be in the best interest of our country if Google decided tomorrow that it wanted to block all speech that reflected negatively upon the United States government, although they would be well within their rights to do that if they chose to (note: I don't think that this is at all likely, it is a hypothetical situation). Like I said, this is a very complicated issue, and there are no simple answers. I would submit, however, that simply allowing the status quo to continue can (and probably will) come back to bite us in the ass. Just as civil rights legislation originally applied only to government, I hope that one day corporations will be held somewhat responsible for ensuring free speech rights.
I propose a new rule: You can't claim copyright on anything that is evidence of a crime you have committed.
Let's eat, grandpa!
Let's eat grandpa!
Grammar: it saves lives.
What is this? FUD about the FUD about the FUD? Or more accurately, FUD that the OP was in fact spreading FUD by claiming non-FUD to be FUD?
They had the machine for decades, but that means they were working with a decades old system. I don't think that a hacker that only had experience working with 1960's computer tech would have much luck hacking into a modern system... and that is still human technology.
Optimus is actually a great tech, if you have Windows. It switches automatically between an integrated graphics card and a discreet nVidia card, saving battery power when you don't need the heavy duty GPU, but giving you the power when you need it. An Optimus-equipped laptop will run Linux. I know, as I am writing this from a Dell XPS 14 running Ubuntu. You will not, unfortunately, be able to use the discreet card. The integrated card, however, works fine. It has more than enough power to run Compiz, which is all I need it for. This is a bummer, but it is not clear that this is nVidia's fault -- the Optimus tech requires that your OS be able to switch graphics drivers on the fly, and it is not clear that either the Linux kernel or X has this capability. Furthermore, it is clear that even if proper Optimus drivers can be written for Linux, it would be a huge pain in the ass to actually implement them. I am no huge fan of nVidia, but please do a little research before mucking up a perfectly good forum with your ill-informed opinions. nVidia is not hanging you out to dry here, they are a business and have made a smart decision that will benefit a lot more people than it will inconvenience.
Because there is a huge amount of evidence available to even a casual observer, and the opposition has no answer that is even remotely convincing. This is not a statement of faith, this is a statement of reason. To deny that this position is the correct one is to deny that there is any such thing as truth or reason and that we might as well give up trying.
I disagree. I can completely understand that most Christians don't follow the Bible as it is written. Doing so would be entirely impossible, as the entire thing is riddled with contradictions, not to mention the felonious nature of many of the acts required of you (read Deuteronomy 21:18-21). I can completely understand that many Christians pick and choose their morality and don't truly follow what the Bible tells them to do.
What I don't understand is that people don't get a hint from this -- it is clearly a book written by men. If the Bible were totally internally consistent, that could be an argument for divinity, but it is not. If the Bible contained information that could not have been obtained by men, it would be worth considering. It does not, however, contain any scientific information that would not have been readily available to people to whom the wheelbarrow was emergent technology.
When I point out the immorality of the Old Testament to believers, I am told that it was a different time. You know what? I agree. It certainly was a different time when the Old Testament was written. The laws in the Old Testament were, in fact, a reflection of the time in which they were written. This, to me, is another argument against the divinity of the Bible -- the fact that the God in the Bible always seems to be a direct reflection of the time in which the various myths and fables were recorded tells me that God is, in fact, a creation of man, rather than the other way around.
Will it suck 1.5 times more? Is that even possible?
Patton Oswalt said it best: "If I had a time machine, I would go back to around 1993 or 1994 and kill George Lucas with a shovel."
There is a very good reason for threatening speech to be against the law. Imagine this hypothetical situation: You are sitting around your house late at night, and your phone rings. A guy on the other end of the phone tells you that he is coming over and is going to shoot you in the dick. If you called the police, would you be satisfied with them telling you that the threat was not a crime in and of itself, and that you ought to call back after you had already been shot in the dick?
I can see no reason that the Internet needs to be treated any differently. We aren't talking about the government having full immediate access to everything that everyone posts online, we are talking about the police being able to subpoena website owners and ISPs to determine the identity of someone making a serious threat. I understand that this power is abused often, but if someone posts a bomb threat on a forum the cops damn well better be doing everything they can to identify the person responsible before anyone gets hurt. We need to put common sense controls on when the police can use this power, but taking it away completely really is just throwing the baby out with the bath water.
The New Testament never nullifies ANYTHING in the Old Testament. Believe me, I've read them both. Tip: Don't argue with an atheist about the Bible, we know more about it than you do.
He did not do that -- it was a friend of his. This means that if you say something stupid, but clearly non-threatening, on the Internet, that the FBI has a right to spy on everyone you know. That, to me, is an extremely troubling precedent to set.